If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post. To do so, click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please do not post any copyrighted images or content without permission from the owner of those images or content. If you are unsure if an image or content is copyright protected, do not post it. When posting images from Google's image search, be sure to utilize the ability to filter by Usage Rights. This is located under Tools > Usage Rights. Any materials that infringe on any owner's Intellectual Property rights will be promptly removed.

the difference being that the unemployment percentage has, despite it admitedly not painting the entire picture, always been a pretty standard barometer in measuring how the economy is doing, whereas taking every single person that isn't working because of the reasons listed previously has not.

This isn't me saying dems don't fudge numbers in their favor. like we've all said, both sides do the same thing. On this issue though, it's definitely the republicans who have been doing the fudging

I mean they're both fudging.

I'm in the minority, admittedly, in that I think the number of work-eligible Americans who aren't working is more important than the actual unemployment rate, since, really, they are unemployed and, unless they're quite wealthy, getting government assistance in one way or another. So saying "only 4.8% of Americans are unemployed" is akin to saying "only 4.8% of Americans get unemployment benefits." But that skews the conversation away from the fact that the other ~35% of non-workers are still getting benefits without working. To me, that's the same thing in that it's still taxpayer funds. The only difference is how they're specifically allocated. Using that little number of 4.8% totally detracts from the ENTIRETY of the population living off of benefits.

I'm fine with that as a barometer for the economy (sort of), but that's not really the only way it's used. It's also used in the context of social safety nets - probably more so - and in that sense, it's just as misleading as the 94M number when talking about how the economy is doing.

There are probably a dozen better indicators of the economy's performance on a global scale, but the unemployment rate, in terms of dollars being spent on social programs, is better used in that arena.

I don't really think those two things are any different. In terms of burden - for lack of better terms - on the taxpayers, 94M people are unemployed and, presumably, dependent on government assistance in one way or another. On the flip side, 4.8% are actually unemployed and can't find work. Both arguments leave out a huge population of people in order to skew the data in their favor.

I agree that the Conservative point looks a lot uglier in terms of the raw numbers and being a more incendiary, but I think that's splitting hairs a bit. Both sides are doing the same thing.

94M people age 16 or over are unemployed and dependent on the normal functions of government while not contributing financially. There are also like 80M children 15 and under who don't contribute financially while depending on those same functions.

Most importantly, this has always been the case. It's not some new development caused by Obama, which is really the implication of throwing out that 94M unemployed figure. Conservatives don't want the Obama years during the economic recovery to seem like they were driven by his good policies. So they're throwing out a lie to say that the recovery is a liberal myth.

On the flip side, real unemployment did not go from a high of around 10% at the deepest level of the recession down to the 4.8% it is reported at today. There is likely some percentage of folks who have dropped out of the work force where that wasn't their ideal situation. I've outlined some of those reasons.

Still, to say the economy didn't recover at all, or that unemployment is actually much worse than it was at the deepest point of the recession is a pants on head retarded lie.

Saying that it's 4.8% when it really is like 6% or what ever is typical political lying that's done every year by both parties more moderate members. At least in my opinion.

I'm in the minority, admittedly, in that I think the number of work-eligible Americans who aren't working is more important than the actual unemployment rate, since, really, they are unemployed and, unless they're quite wealthy, getting government assistance in one way or another. So saying "only 4.8% of Americans are unemployed" is akin to saying "only 4.8% of Americans get unemployment benefits." But that skews the conversation away from the fact that the other ~35% of non-workers are still getting benefits without working. To me, that's the same thing in that it's still taxpayer funds. The only difference is how they're specifically allocated. Using that little number of 4.8% totally detracts from the ENTIRETY of the population living off of benefits.

I'm fine with that as a barometer for the economy (sort of), but that's not really the only way it's used. It's also used in the context of social safety nets - probably more so - and in that sense, it's just as misleading as the 94M number when talking about how the economy is doing.

There are probably a dozen better indicators of the economy's performance on a global scale, but the unemployment rate, in terms of dollars being spent on social programs, is better used in that arena.

I don't think this is true in each instance, although it is true form some. A retired person may be living off of social security. That's not government assistance in the traditional sense, since it was paid for by the person over the course of their life. A student in high school or college who is not working, I guess, would be a dependent of their parents, so is that the kind of government assistance you're talking about? A family where one parent provides child care, again, is likely a dependent not paying taxes as well.

Are these the types of situations you're including in the claim of government dependence?

I don't think this is true in each instance, although it is true form some. A retired person may be living off of social security. That's not government assistance in the traditional sense, since it was paid for by the person over the course of their life. A student in high school or college who is not working, I guess, would be a dependent of their parents, so is that the kind of government assistance you're talking about? A family where one parent provides child care, again, is likely a dependent not paying taxes as well.

Are these the types of situations you're including in the claim of government dependence?

Yea, I recognize that they're not all avoidable and that "dependent" is probably not fully accurate. But when you lump it all together with unemployment/welfare, then you get the big picture, and that's where that 94M isn't anymore inaccurate than the 4.8%. Does that make sense?

Just give us the health care package that all senators and representatives get, and we won't need the ACA, LOL. The Democrats pander to liberals and the Republicans pander to conservatives. Given there aren't any moderates left, we just swing from one end of the spectrum to the other depending on who is in power. Under Obama, we swung toward the liberals (moderated by the republican controlled congress). Now the house and senate can swing things back toward conservative policies. If/when the democrats control congress and/or the presidency, things will swing back to the liberals.

All the pandering doesn't solve any issues like crumbling infrastructure, rising debt/deficit, etc. Incumbents can just enjoy the Washington lifestyle for as long as they can.

"We're all f*cked. It helps to remember that." - George Carlin

"How many Cups you've got?" - Esa Tikkanen

"Hatred can keep you warm when you run out of liquor" - Ray Ratto, Dan Patrick show 1/20/2017

Just give us the health care package that all senators and representatives get, and we won't need the ACA, LOL. The Democrats pander to liberals and the Republicans pander to conservatives. Given there aren't any moderates left, we just swing from one end of the spectrum to the other depending on who is in power. Under Obama, we swung toward the liberals (moderated by the republican controlled congress). Now the house and senate can swing things back toward conservative policies. If/when the democrats control congress and/or the presidency, things will swing back to the liberals.

All the pandering doesn't solve any issues like crumbling infrastructure, rising debt/deficit, etc. Incumbents can just enjoy the Washington lifestyle for as long as they can.

That's a great point, which is why it's so important to severely limit the powers of these people. That way you aren't so upset with who is actually in power.

Teachers are overpaid and education gets too much money.
Artists are overpaid and The Arts get too much money.
Scientists work frivolously and science wastes money.
Millions of Americans don't need health care.
Americans need a big wall like China and Germany used to have.
USA needs to spend more money on the military so we can have more shiny toys.

Why do I get the feeling that the dream Trump photo-op involves a fighter pilot bomber jacket, an expensive sports car, bikini models, and the latest fighter jet zooming overhead.

"We're all f*cked. It helps to remember that." - George Carlin

"How many Cups you've got?" - Esa Tikkanen

"Hatred can keep you warm when you run out of liquor" - Ray Ratto, Dan Patrick show 1/20/2017

Teachers are overpaid and education gets too much money.
Artists are overpaid and The Arts get too much money.
Scientists work frivolously and science wastes money.
Millions of Americans don't need health care.
Americans need a big wall like China and Germany used to have.
USA needs to spend more money on the military so we can have more shiny toys.

Why do I get the feeling that the dream Trump photo-op involves a fighter pilot bomber jacket, an expensive sports car, bikini models, and the latest fighter jet zooming overhead.

Are you ending the comparisons at the physical wall or are you implying similarity to an Eastern Bloc country?

Seven years of complaining Affordable Care Act, and the Republicans never bothered to draft a health care alternative. Probably just need more time. Maybe republicans are better at bitching and moaning than actually getting work done.

"We're all f*cked. It helps to remember that." - George Carlin

"How many Cups you've got?" - Esa Tikkanen

"Hatred can keep you warm when you run out of liquor" - Ray Ratto, Dan Patrick show 1/20/2017

Well they bothered, but they didn't really factor in their own party's reservations in regards to healthcare. It's really the chickens of the last 9 years coming home to roost. They were fantastic at being a protesting, obstructionist party.

But now it's time to govern and utilize the full power of their majority annnnnd they can't fucking get out of their own way. Not that I particularly wanted them to, but if you bitch and moan about Obamacare for 7 years, run on the promise of repealing it, and talk up how "very, very good" the new plan you created is, maybe you should actually come through.

But no. It was the Democrats' fault and we're getting tired of winning all the time.

The funniest thing about blaming the Democrats is there were no attempts to come up with a bipartisan solution to health care... and showed that it is hard to appeal to all the different factions within the republican party. still, hard to believe these are the people we are paying to run our country.

"We're all f*cked. It helps to remember that." - George Carlin

"How many Cups you've got?" - Esa Tikkanen

"Hatred can keep you warm when you run out of liquor" - Ray Ratto, Dan Patrick show 1/20/2017

Seven years of complaining Affordable Care Act, and the Republicans never bothered to draft a health care alternative. Probably just need more time. Maybe republicans are better at bitching and moaning than actually getting work done.

This baffles me. Even if you weren't in power and couldn't change things.. wouldn't you at least have an idea of how you want this bill/repeal to look? Or when it looks like you might actually win the presidency maybe get some people together to form some key point of a future bill? How could you possibly not have anything in the bag?

Edit: I should say anything semi-realistic that might actually get at least 50% approval.

This baffles me. Even if you weren't in power and couldn't change things.. wouldn't you at least have an idea of how you want this bill/repeal to look? Or when it looks like you might actually win the presidency maybe get some people together to form some key point of a future bill? How could you possibly not have anything in the bag?

Edit: I should say anything semi-realistic that might actually get at least 50% approval.

I don't mean to let them off the hook...but it looked like they were getting the presidency on election night. Even though they were late, my issue is they rolled something out without a consensus. Hammer out those differences or don't put it forward yet.

Having said that, I think this is golf shot that hits a tree and lands in the fairway. They have plenty on their agenda that they do agree on. I'd rather they move on that first instead of risking everything on health care and lose the midterms...and with them, any chance to get other things accomplished. To a degree I feel like that's what happened to Obama.